Amidst all the controversy and debate on The Movie Blog around the length of King Kong (over 3 hours), I made a little prediction on the Audio Edition that although Kong debuted at #1 on it’s opening weekend (knocking out The Chronicles of Narnia which was #1 the previous week), that Narnia would catch up and pass Kong in subsequent weeks. People said I was crazy because Narnia was a week older than Kong and because Kong was going to just plain dominate it anyway.
I maintained that although it was going to make a HUGE amount of money, Kong was too long for some people (which would keep some people away) and that it limited itself due to only being able to show once per night per screen. On the other hand, Narnia was a kids friendly film with a seasonal theme and almost 40 minutes shorter than Kong. Still… people said I was crazy. Well guess what…
Narnia has passed King Kong for the #1 spot at the box office again.
It’s becoming clear now that the studios estimate of King Kong making $300 million domestically (North America) just isn’t going to happen. After it’s 3rd weekend in release (a 4 day weekend too), Kong has pulled in $174 million (terrific numbers by almost anyone elses standards). But with it’s weekend numbers already in the $20 million range, and stronger films preparing to open, the $300 million mark is just too far out of reach. Maybe $240 million.
What’s an even bigger surprise is the success of The Chronicles of Narnia. It made $33.7 million in it’s four weekend in release and now sits with $225.7 million in total. I don’t think anyone saw those kinds of numbers coming. I expect it to hit $270 – $275 million when all is said and done. Which is fine with me because Narnia is a better film than Kong (in my opinion anyway), even though I have Kong on my 10 best films of 2005 list.
So what do you think? Does this surprise you? Can King Kong get enough repeat business to catch up to Narnia?
This movie had a great theme of sacrificial love. How rare. The scenery was wonderful and the graphics phenomenal. It was a clean movie. How rare. Can’t wait for the DVD to come out so I can purchase it and show it to many people in Latin America where we spend a lot of time.
Aside from the youngest actress in Narnia, her great scenes with the gent who played The Fawn (who was tremendous in his own right), Liam Neeson’s stupendous voiceover and some pretty keen production values and the opening scenes I was totally bored with Narnia. Bored stiff. But I’d read the books. I mean after Frodo and the boys and all their drama and trauma the kids in Narnia just didn’t do it for me. BUT, it’s a family film and fit the holiday spirit. Plus it was marketed to the church-going crowd (as was LOTR and The Passion) and once you do that. And overseas many wanted to see the book that they’d ready while growing up so the film had a built-in fan base.
King Kong should’ve been released in the summer and even so a parent might be afraid to take their kids to see the big ape. But it was a better movie overall for me because I wasn’t bored.
Well, I read a reviewer in a magazine here saying that he preferred Narnia above EVERY LOTR movie.
That√Ǭ¥s a lot to say… maybe not LOL
I am sure both will do well when they come out on DVDs. I know I am going to buy both when they come out.
Donna A.
John, John, John, it’s clear what your favorite movie is as you gleefully cheer that Kong won’t reach $300M. But realize that with a longer running time, Kong only missed the top spot by $1-$2M. Narnia won’t stay up for long and as we all know, it’s about staying power. So, we’ll see what Kong has made come March. All I say is: Remember Titanic.
Hey Guys,
doesn’t overseas grossing count … doesn’t the movie get the overseas profit?
-george
I am a little surprised. Kong had much more hype and better reviews, but it is too long for some people(although Titanic is longer than this, and that didn’t stop that movie). I don’t get it. It’s doing much better overseas, though. Guess Europeans are more patient than us crazy Americans.
Yeah at the ren festivals there are always cheetahs and polar bears and gryphons roaming around. Oh yeah dont forget those big minotaurs they always make an appearance at the bad ones. I felt the CGI was better in Narnia btw, it was more artistic.
The Chronicals of Narnia was very, very disappointing to me. It fell flat on the big screen due to pacing problems (everything was to rushed, the best scene in the movie is Lucy with Thomas and that scene took things at a better (slower) pace). And adaptation issues: The big battle stunk (too much like a bad Rennaissance Festival) and the Children felt out of place as active combatants. By the internal logic of the film, the boys should have been ripped to shreds by their enemies. Badly, badly done. What works on the page (a few paragraphs saying there was a big battle) is realized poorly as it has to be fleshed out for the screen. I’m not faulting WETA, as the CGI was pretty, I’m faulting the screen-writers and director. It’s pretty uninspired directing all around.
Kong is definately the better of the two films. Kong feels like love to the source material, Narnia feels like a loyal, but uninspired adaptation (see also Harry Potter 1 for this)
Guess we can kiss goodbye any King Kong sequels. *snicker*
Stop ranting John. The bulk of your listeners/readers got your logic and beleved you the first time around. Stupid people cannot be convinced, so stop trying please.
Isnt Kong’s box office take due to the fact it cannot play as much per day because it is so long.
I don’t think this is all that surprising, especially considering the extra advertising that Narnia has been getting in the form of the “Chronic(WHAT?)-cles of Narnia” rap SNL skit that’s taken the world by storm.
I still say King Kong is by far the better film, but as far as holiday crowds go, Narnia is easily the more attractive alternative for most people.
I’m not suprised simply because Narnia seems considerably more family friendly than Kong. You can safely drag the whole brood along whereas Kong might scare the crap out of the young’ uns. That and the aforementioned length of Kong might put families with impatient kids off.
Not sure exactly what their respective certificates are here (UK) or stateside?
Also Narnia had some major Church support in the US (cos of all that Christian allegory business) which is always good for getting bums on seats. Ref – Passion of the Christ.
For what it’s worth I’ll be heading back to catch Kong again.
I saw the stats at the Box Office Mojo yesterday and I also remembered your contention about it John. Although I enjoyed Kong but enough of a very long movie already! I am guessing that the amount of people who saw the LotR films year after year (since 2001-2003) isnt just going to be that interested to see another LotR wannabe (in terms of length) Serves you right Mr Jackson!
No I dont think it will catch up, Narnia is too good!